Geoff Shannon (@Geoff_Shannon)

A few times a year the debate over lacrosse's 'Lax Bro' culture pops up, and usually it's an interesting — but flawed — discussion. The debate focuses on garish clothes, marketing tactics and style, but it always dances around the writer's real ire: They don't like that lacrosse is stigmatized as a sport played by rich preppy people.

For me though, I just don't see how we dispel that image when it's the living reality. Save a few exceptions, lacrosse in America for the last 100 years or so has been championed by the country's economic elite. Private universities and elite college prep institutions have dominated the sport. In the last 10 years, lacrosse's national growth has been meteoric, but it's also followed a similar pattern of catching hold at elite prep schools or in the public schools in the wealthy parts of town.

At the college level, growth is pragmatically driven by the notion that a lacrosse team will attract rich, full tuition-paying students. And a large chunk of lacrosse's historic blue-collar base pursued the sport in part to attend an elite college and make the move up the American economic ladder.

Which is all to say lacrosse and the wealthy prep community — and the unique culture that it embodies — are tied together, and have been for a long time. Pull out a yearbook from any of these institutions going back to the late ’60s, and you'll be amazed how the looks, fashions and team photos don't change much (maybe there were more mustaches, though). Today's fashions, uniform styles and vocabulary are rooted in that past, and as the sport grows nationally, it's found a welcome home in similar communities. I do think there's room to debate about aspects of the sport's sellable image and culture, but the core as of now is not going to change. For that change to happen, lacrosse would have to grow at an astronomical rate — this is the key point — across vast economic borders. Even with a focused push, I don't expect that to affect the culture anytime soon.

Casey Vock (@Cvock)

I enjoyed the ILGear piece we ran this week on what is perceived as a “Lax Bro” culture and how that could potentially damage or restrict the sport. But having grown up in Upstate New York, just a few minutes from Canada, I have never really bought the entire idea of “lax bros,” however you might define them. I understand where that idea/phrase comes from, but where I grew up seems to have been much less “infected” by what I view as more a perception than a reality.

When I return up north to cover lacrosse, I rarely if ever run into any of these “lax bros” people speak of. Hang out on Onondaga or Akwesasne and tell me if you find any “lax bros.” I doubt you’ll locate them. You’ll just find young people who view lacrosse as part of their lives. And I think that’s mostly true for young players in Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Watertown, Ithaca, Binghamton and Albany. These guys just love lacrosse and they are for the most part pretty unassuming about it. They don’t seem to distort the image of the sport in a way that bothers me personally. And they don’t force the culture on others in a way that would leave a bad taste in their mouths, at least from what I’ve experienced. The big takeaway for me is that lacrosse in those areas is almost strictly played in public high schools.

I’ve lived and covered the sport in Syracuse and Baltimore. I can see that in an area like Baltimore, where the MIAA schools are expensive prep-style institutions, the idea of a “lax bro” culture can be more widely held because these kids come from schools where the families have money, there’s prestige. That’s bound to help fuel a reputation of elitism, wealth, flashiness — all the things that play into this idea of a flamboyant lacrosse culture. And I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I see that as being a strong basis for how the sport is viewed in mainstream media, which some lacrosse insiders have put on a pedestal with the “lax bro” tag.

And that’s the downside.

I don’t think all the kids on prep school rosters are like that — maybe none behave in the manner Grant Preston described in his article. But reality and perception are two different things. Some areas that have similar demographics (New England, to some degree Long Island, the Hudson Valley, and Philadelphia) are more visible than schools like those in Upstate or lacrosse on reservations and in Canada. A lot of the schools in growth areas experiencing success are private as opposed to public, so it’s reasonable that the reputation can grow in those areas as an extension of the perceived culture from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. It would be like dropping a private school for surfing in Syracuse. People will base their opinions on the school and the culture on what was most visible to them.

On another note, you will always find goofballs on every roster in every sport — kids who are in it for the fun, the off-the-field enjoyment (whether it’s partying, wearing the clothes, simply telling people, “dude, I play lacrosse”). Those characters don’t really embody the traditional aspect of the sport, but they can have just as big of an impact on the sport’s culture as those who go about their business. In my opinion, lacrosse does have a traditional culture, and though it’s always being changed by new technology, media exposure, business interests, it makes me feel good to return north and see that lacrosse as a culture hasn’t changed a lot in the last 15-plus years. It could be my own perception, but I strongly feel that the “lax bro” culture doesn’t have much of a presence, both in reality and in people’s minds, in Upstate New York. And to be fair, I don’t really see “lax bro” culture as a reality in Baltimore, but instead as a reputation and way of thinking about lacrosse players in some circles.

Still, I think the “lax bro” culture is only as real as you allow it to be. One way of combating it is to not acknowledge it (or elements of the sport you think fuel it) or by not allowing it to be a part of your own lacrosse culture or way of living in the game. Over time, it could help minimize any impact you think it’s having. At the end of the day, I think it’s something people in the sport sort of created from the inside out. All sports have a reputation, and how lacrosse is presented in mainstream media is to some degree out of our control. When feasible, I personally strive to downplay the part of the culture I don’t enjoy seeing projected to the world by respecting the game. I don’t like giving credence to a misconstrued view of the game, which is why I’ve tried to instill a traditionalist element to the content on ILGear.com. Circling back to my initial point, my perspective on this comes from playing lacrosse in Upstate and growing up there.

In following up that, though, I do think that the perception of a “lax bro” culture stinks, because even though I personally don’t think it’s warranted or consistent, it can impact the sport. That’s why I urge people to not give it more wheels; let it exist in the minds of the cheesebags who live their lacrosse lives in this manner, whether intentional or not.

John Jiloty (@JJiloty)

A few important factors of Grant Preston’s Lax Bro article on ILGear.com this week are, first off, that he’s a current high school senior lacrosse player and DIII commit. So this concern and negative viewpoint toward “lax bros” is coming from the most active of players deeply entrenched in the sport. And he’s from a somewhat new area (Florida), so his opinion that “lax bros” are holding back the sport’s growth comes from an important position. Second, it’s not like IL went out looking for an active player to write this opinion piece. He came to us.

I personally don’t think it’s holding back lacrosse’s growth; a few bro-ed out kids aren’t going to limit an entire sport’s evolution. But it is still a negative persona tied to a sport that has somewhat plateaued in growth recently (lower Final Four attendance, losing Easton and Reebok as manufacturers, anecdotal accounts of flat or declined sales figures from some retailers), so anything like this could be potentially problematic.

Lacrosse is obviously a serious sport, as evidenced by the dramatic increase in athleticism, size, speed and geographic diversity among NCAA DI and Major League Lacrosse and the National Lacrosse League. It is still miles away from football, basketball, baseball or soccer, but it is has tremendous potential to continue to grow.

People within lacrosse need to be responsible for their actions and how they reflect the entire sport. If you want your sport to be big-time, don’t act in a way that will give lacrosse a bad name. Know that you’re always under the spotlight, thanks to recent incidents that have garnered national attention. Respect the sport.

Zach Babo (@ZachBabo)

The polarity of this discussion I find wildly interesting, while its overall value or merits may be debatable in their own right. Like all niche things, lacrosse has image issues because it lacks wide familiarity, so often outsiders only know the particular aspects they are introduced to. If that is something positive — like the sport’s high graduation rates, legacy of community service, strong academic tradition, and exciting, athletic play — then it casts the sport in a much better light. If that is something negative — like the sport’s drug issues, legal misgivings, upper-echelon base, or its “bro culture” — then the impression is much less favorable.

Until lacrosse is a sport as culturally widespread as football or basketball (a level I’m not sure it will ever get to), then it will struggle with this issue of limited exposure. Because human nature focuses more on negativity than positivity, the bad aspects of the game often get more play than the good.

I also think, like most niche interests, those in the lacrosse community at times practice a little doublespeak. We want the game to grow, but we are critical of the new areas it grows to. We want more people to participate, but we don’t like when those new people may bring in new influences and styles we don’t care for. The phenomenon is similar to when someone moves to a cool new neighborhood, just to then not like everyone else who does the same thing in the years that follow. While it would be great to see pro lacrosse players paid at the same level of other major sports and see our tournament elicit the same fervor as March Madness, there's also a certain defensiveness for protecting this game we're so passionate about and the cache in being part of a smaller community.

I think the “bro culture” debate strikes at the heart of a lot of this. Is this more of an argument about what being a “bro” is and how that hurts the game, or is this more of an “us and them” divide? Is this a concern so much about what “bro culture” does within the game, or about what “bro culture” is saying about the game to outsiders? Is this the cool, unique sport that intrigued you because of its individuality, or is this the creeping narcissism of newcomers polluting lacrosse? Would these kids still be “bros” if they were playing any other sport, or is there something about lacrosse that lets this behavior flourish? Is it a product of changes in the culture of the game, or is it an outside influence that is trying to change the culture of the game? Is there a limit to how many different designs can be sublimated onto a pair of shorts?

A thoughtful answer to all of those questions can really determine how “bro culture” is affecting lacrosse. Like a lot of the hot topic debates in the game, it’s much easier for me to flesh out the merits of all sides than it is to land firmly in one camp or another.

Terry Foy (@TerenceFoy)

Each of the points made so far have been good — Geoff's that the "Lax Bro" debate pops up regularly, John's that it remains an issue; Casey's that it's different place-to-place, Zach's that there are more questions than answers.

As a result of so many good points having been brought up, I'm not going to add a comment, but a complaint. One of the things that bothers me about lacrosse purists complaining about the Lax Bro is their pearl-clutching about how teenagers are ruining the game.

This is not a new thing.

I was introduced to lacrosse when I was eight years old and my older brother started playing as a high school freshman; Cleveland in 1992. Lacrosse-as-fashion existed then, and some kids judged their teammates based on how cool they looked on the field. And I'm certain that lacrosse as fashion and style are phenomenons much older than 21 years.

Two things have changed — the sport's grown in every way and "lacrosse as fashion/style" has been commoditized and marketed more directly to capitalize on what was a real trend. I can understand bristling at that, but not to the point of revising history to say this is a new creation.